reply on: Rethinking Lightning \ stacker news ~bitcoin

351 sats \ 8 replies \ @tomlaies 7 Jan \ parent \ on: Rethinking Lightning bitcoin

Fundamentally, all current lightning channels could become entirely useless if on-chain fees went high enough because a single payment would require too many reserves.

All layer two designs suffer the same problem.

I'm a little shocked that such blatant fud-propaganda slips by here without anybody refuting it.

All L2 solutions - including Lightning - don't suffer from this problem. They solve this problem.

First of all the Fees of L1 onchain Bitcoin a result of demand and supply. Lightning payments can be done instantly, in arbitrary sizes and between many (basically endless) clients. This tips the scale. It tips the scale with huge resources on the supply side. The reason why this effect hasn't fully kicked in yet is because not every exchange, miner, bitcoin business isn't on Lightning yet.
Second Lightning enables users to ignore on-chain fees. Make your fiat-Bitcoin exchange on an exchange and withdraw via lightning. Use your money on a Bitcoin business that accepts Lightning. Normal people need zero interaction with onchain. In the future they wouldn't even need to know what onchain even is just like many people in the fiat world don't know what swift is. The reason why this effect hasn't fully kicked in yet is, again, because not every exchange, miner, bitcoin business isn't on Lightning yet.

145 sats \ 0 replies \ @niftynei 7 Jan

Honestly, i love your optimism

if the bitcoin chain wasn’t being filled with what im politely terming “extra-chain assets” but instead transfers of bitcoin you might have a stronger point wrt supply + demand of blockspace and on- vs off- chain fees

264 sats \ 0 replies \ @vindard 7 Jan

Second Lightning enables users to ignore on-chain fees.

Yea you should really re-read the original post. This isn't at all true, and it's explained pretty well why

52 sats \ 2 replies \ @ek 7 Jan

Second Lightning enables users to ignore on-chain fees.

Did you read the post? Maybe you mean users using custodial services with "normal people" here:

Normal people need zero interaction with onchain.

LN is an abstraction that has leaks as explained in the post (and like many abstractions).

Maybe we're arguing about different things but do you not see the leaks?

13 sats \ 1 reply \ @tomlaies 7 Jan

I'm answering specifically on the framing as Lightning being at the whims of the economics instead on Lightning being what determines the economics.

Let's take the example of global container shipping. Sure you can say the shipping industry is at the mercy of freight rates of the market economy. But that's undercomplex perspective at best and dishonest at worst. Global shipping isn't at the mercy of the economy, it's part of what fundamentally drives the economy.

3 sats \ 0 replies \ @ek 7 Jan

Global shipping isn't at the mercy of the economy, it's part of what fundamentally drives the economy.

I would say global shipping depends and drives the economy.

It's a complex system where some outputs can be inputs again (feedback loops).

0 sats \ 2 replies \ @_b_o_n_e_s_ 7 Jan

the post is saying that channels are affected by fees as channels need reserves, then you're saying they don't, why not?

0 sats \ 1 reply \ @tomlaies 7 Jan

They are right now but in the long term it's the other way round. Channels will affect the fees more than fees will affect the channels.

100 sats \ 0 replies \ @_b_o_n_e_s_ 8 Jan

and how do we get to the long term if the near term is unclear if lightning is even the right way to scale